Tag Archives: religion

I recently flew to St Louis to be in the wedding of my oldest friend, and wasn’t completely sure what to expect. The venue was a conservative denomination of Presbyterian, and although I had received nothing but unconditional loving support from my friend (whom I consider my brother), the notion that some of the congregants might have some feeling about yours truly up at the altar did come to mind. After all, our demographic does have some history with religious intolerance. The experience got me thinking about the problem of faith for so many trans people, as well as the problem that many people of faith have with the very concept of transgender. Let’s talk about that for a minute, shall we?

As no religious demographic exists that fails to produce trans folk, waters can become challenging to horrendously difficult to navigate depending on the prevalent belief structure. Some faiths are very tolerant and welcoming, while others are downright sadistic in their treatment of the non-conforming. At the same time, trans folk are faced with attempting to reconcile their religious identity with their gender identity and often find themselves unable. Both cisgender and transgender people of faith find themselves wondering what kind of God would inflict someone with such a burden in life, especially if it flies in the face of cherished theology and dogma. The gap is too wide to ignore, and oftentimes the results are horrifying. Leelah Alcorn comes to mind.

In regards to religion, sacred documents and scripture are notoriously unclear how to handle our population, leaving the field open to wild interpretation. Many attempts have been made to shoehorn us into instruction on the treatment of eunuchs or homosexuals, with neither being a particularly good fit. While some genderqueer folk do consider themselves to be neither gender none of us identify as eunuchs regardless of pre, post, or non-surgical status. I do not consider myself a castrated man, I consider myself a woman. While we often align ourselves with the homosexual population for mutual interest, our numbers are equitable to the cisgender population in sexual orientation. Still, many religious entities find it impossible to leave this unclassified and unspoken and ultimately make some ruling rather than let the issue simply be. This sometimes works in our favor, and sometimes not, but in neither case does it intrinsically change our gender identities, but only make them more or less easy to come to terms with.

The secondary problem, and one that goes hand in hand with lack of citation in sacred writings, is an inability to classify what exactly causes the transgender condition. Theories abound ranging from pre-natal hormone wash, multiple souls, genetics, karmic punishment, nurture, sexuality, mental illness, lifestyle desires, and demonic possession. I even had gluten allergy proposed to me a few months back. Some theories are more credible than others obviously. Lacking clear and comprehensible evidence that transgender is a medical condition, psychological condition, lifestyle choice, or divine intervention, religious entities are left to pick one that best matches their particular belief system and provide guidance accordingly. Problems arise when the belief structure fails to match the first hand understanding of the trans person. Calling it a lifestyle choice, for example, when the trans person would gladly choose anything but, creates a crisis of faith. The religion may consider the trans person to be obstinate and willfully disobedient, while the trans person is left in crisis with a rapidly eroding certainty that their faith was well placed.

The answers that trans people come to are varied. A few are fortunate enough to belong to a belief system that embraces their identity. Some eschew faith all together and rely solely on observable, testable, and repeatable science to explain all aspects of the universe, denying even the possibility of a God or spirituality. Others attempt to find a variation of their original faith, or a different one all together, that is more accepting. A tiny handful attempt to stick it out and effect a change in understanding; how their existence is not incompatible with the core tenets of their religion. These, of course, are the ones who survive the process. Far too many, cast out by an inflexible system that includes their family and support network, see no other option than to take their own life and end the disparity once and for all.

It seems that at the core of this is the old duel between science and faith. The scientific process produces more evidence every year that ‘transgender’ is a real, verified, and enduring condition of existence for a certain percentage of the population. Some, but not all, religious belief systems cannot account for this in their cosmology and thereby view it as a willful rejection of God-given identity at birth. Man of science, woman of faith, the two shall forevermore be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Perhaps, but I don’t think so. I don’t really see why the two should be considered incompatible at all if looked at correctly. It’s only when we try to dissect one with the knife of the other do problems start to pop up.

As it’s the biggest tool in my box, I’ll reach in there and pull out an analogy. If one is a detective, he or she will examine each mystery in a precise and methodical way. Looking for clues, developing theories, testing them, weighing the results against existing knowledge, and eliminating the alternatives, a detective will drive to a conclusion that holds up in court. If one is an artist, however, the endless quest is to reflect the unquantifiable nature of the world and capture the emotional essence. If a crime is committed, the detective is most valuable. If creativity designed to produce an emotional response is desired, the artist is the best choice. Just as an abstract painter would be disastrous in working a crime scene, the analytic skills of the detective are fairly useless at the Louvre unless the Mona Lisa is stolen again. It’s not a perfect analogy, but represents what happens when the mind is used to quantify the heart, or the heart is used to puzzle something logistically tricky out.

When attempting to explain aspects of our physical universe, it makes much more sense to utilize the scientific tools we have to ferret out the answers. Using ancient documents, not so much. At the same time, mankind’s attempts to commune with a higher power, spiritually comfort one another, or find hope against all logic, faith is truly best. Each has its function and place, and reliance on only one for all things seems to be a recipe for failure half the time. Using faith to determine the age of the earth, the evolution of species, or whether Noah’s flood really happened or not is missing the point as these things truly don’t matter in a spiritual quest. Likewise, science is a poor tool for determining the nature of God, quantifying enlightenment, or nailing down the afterlife. Each is best in its own sphere, and left there, the constant animosity becomes irrelevant.

As being transgender almost certainly has a root cause in the physical world, it belongs to the realm of science to answer how and why. In the meantime I think it would make sense for faith based institutions to withhold judgment in this arena and welcome existing and new adherents who can contribute to the congregation and be simultaneously helped by the simple acceptance. Trans people could be relieved of the anxiety and guilt they may feel due to shaky interpretations of what God in any setting has been very unclear about. An embracing acceptance of what simply is seems much more in line with the tenets of love and compassion that run through all faiths.

Finally, I think it’s a mistake to assume one must be either a detective or an artist. A detective may use their finely honed logic to pick through meticulous detail and solve the mystery, then come home, get out the canvas and paint something both beautifully inspiring and wholly unrecognizable. It is the reconciliation of each aspect of our being as not incompatible but complimentary, that brings the best peace and greatest good.

Like this:

Deuteronomy 22:5, King James Version states: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

That sounds pretty serious! What exactly is an abomination? Aside from that creep who fights the Hulk in the second movie, to whom I’m reasonably sure the good folks who brought us KJV were not referencing.

Webster’s Dictionary defines an ‘abomination’ as “something abominable”. That isn’t such a help. It then defines ‘abominable’ as “worthy of or causing disgust or hatred”. Ouch. I hate to add to my woes, but the example Webster’s Dictionary gives for ‘sophomoric’ is, “Any point made by utilizing ‘Webster’s Dictionary defines…” in the introduction. Bear with me your honor, I’m going somewhere with this.

No no, I’m not using your precious time to reiterate the already well argued case that even were we in the transgendered community to assume that true, it would not apply to us anyway since we do adopt the right clothing for our gender. Instead I’m going to zag left here and speak to the underlying problem. There is a fundamental difference in root languages and bases of logic that is making it a real pickle to find common ground to even have a meaningful discussion. Because of this, the struggle for those little things, like basic rights, is fought on the battlefield of public political opinion and the comments section of CNN.com. Can we hope for more? Honestly, I don’t know, but let’s get at least a picture of things.

I used to spend a great deal of time arguing the greater and lesser points of issues by attempting to drill down to some final authority. There are too many final authorities I’ve come to find. Imagine several lawyers attempting to make a case, each articulating a fundamental truth of the Korean, Japanese, and Malaysian constitutions respectively. (My original example had the US and Iranian constitution, but I quickly realized that both sides automatically assumed themselves to be the US and thereby the moral high ground). “It’s all well and good you cited Document X Section Y Passage Z, but I simply don’t recognize that.” This is inevitably followed by a lot of snarky name calling, belittlement, and esoteric threats.

So where do we find common ground to communicate? If a proportion of the population believes in a faith based core truth that maintains transition or other transgendered actions are aberrant behaviors that clearly contradict a decisively communicated divine will, how do we answer that? Medical and other scientific evidence is routinely discounted as inherently erroneous. The methodology must be inherently flawed if it doesn’t align with scripture. Incredibly, the pissy approach of disproving the holy word by labeling it the ignorant ramblings of bronze age nomads and their mercurial sky god doesn’t seem to be making much of a dent either. I know, right? Hard to believe someone wouldn’t immediately drop decades of emotional investment in a paradigm when you put it that way.

Here we are. On one hand there are those of us who are transgendered, part of the larger LGBTQ community, and allies who recognize we were born this way and there isn’t much to be done about it. On the other, there are those who are certain that is not the case because various forms of scripture say it isn’t so, and that trumps all. While there are exceptions on either side such as alleged ‘ex-gays’ who purport to have prayed it away, or believers turned skeptic for one reason or another, on the whole no amount of crafty logic, clever jabs, or recitation of quotes seems to be swaying any appreciable number of folks. Nothing so frustrating as an impasse in rhetoric. From the trans point of view, it’s not enough to agree to disagree; we have rights and liberties at stake.

If we can’t beat them and don’t want to join them, the best bet is to get to know them. Hold on now before you demonize the idea as ‘consorting with the enemy’. When Ellen DeGeneres came out and “Will and Grace” was on the air, there was almost a deafening din of cries, “I don’t want homosexuality in my face!” It’s true, some are still sticking to their guns with that and we have to accept some people are never going to change. The important thing though, is that enough did. Now having gay media personalities is hardly even a thing, and the vast majority of characters are viewed as likable. It may be a chicken and egg argument regarding the very positive trends such as SONDA, gay marriage, and DADT repeal following relatively soon after. The point is that once something viewed as strange and suspicious is linked to real people, or at least likable characters, it becomes much harder to outright reject. “Much harder to hate you to your face”, as the old marketing saying goes.

I’ll go into the current panicky political backlash in another post, but my main point is that the road to becoming normalized parts of a society, especially one that contains diametrically opposed belief systems, is visibility. The more we put ourselves out there, especially in a positive manner, no matter how much head-in-the-sand resistance is encountered, so many more will come to see us as people. The level below base belief faith and base belief science is Base Human, our one fundamentally common language.